list_cve_products

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Get a list' but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it's a read-only operation, how results are formatted (e.g., pagination, sorting), potential rate limits, or error handling. The source mention hints at external data but lacks operational details, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides the source. There's no wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the source attribution, while useful, could be integrated more seamlessly, and it lacks structural elements like bullet points for clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but misses behavioral details (e.g., response format, limitations) and usage context. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must infer behavior, making this adequate but with clear gaps for reliable invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'vendor' parameter clearly documented as 'Vendor name to list products for'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get a list') and resource ('products associated with a vendor in the CVE database'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_cve_vendors' by focusing on products rather than vendors. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_cve' or 'search_cves', which could be related, so it's not a perfect 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_cve_vendors' (for listing vendors) or 'search_cves' (which might allow product filtering), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The source attribution ('Source: cve-search.org') adds minimal context but doesn't aid in tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.